JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal. 2. Admittedly, one Chhoteykhan was the owner of the house in dispute. He died on November 30, 1980. Smt. Batulan is his daughter. On December 6, 1963, she executed a deed of sale in respect of this house in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant, Smt. Kanizan is the widowed daughter-in-law of Chhoteykhan aforesaid. Her husband died during the life-time of Chhoteykhan. The plaintiff contends that the other daughters and sons of Chhoteykhan migrated to Pakistan and that a valid title was acquired by him by virtue of purchase made by Smt Batulan. The relief claimed is for possession over the house. In defence, it was asserted by the defendant that Chhoteykhan made an oral gift in her favour about a fortnight prior to his death and she has been in possession ever since. 3. The trial court decreed the suit being of the view that the oral gift set up by the defendant was not established and that Smt. Batulan was a co-sharer. This finding was reversed by the lower appellate court which came to the conclusion that the gift alleged by the defendant is proved and that on the basis thereof the title vests in the defendant and not in the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the oral gift set up by the defendant-respondent cannot be said to be established and in this connection it was stressed that the defendant was unable to prove that possession was conveyed to her by Chhoteykhan during his life-time. It has been argued that the oral evidence given from the side of the defendant is not supported from documents while the plaintiffs contention received support from documentary evidence and, hence, the assessment of the evidence made by the trial court should not have been interfered with by the lower appellate court. 5. An analysis of the evidence placed on the record may not be said to support this contention of the learned counsel. Chhoteykhan had it would appear, executed an usufructory mortgage in respect of this house on 20th October, 1948, for a sum of Rs. 300/- in favour of P.W. Behari Lal. On the same date, Chhoteykhan had executed a rent note in favour of the mortgagee. The mortgage was redeemed, according to the defendant, by her subsequent to the gift made in her favour. 300/- in favour of P.W. Behari Lal. On the same date, Chhoteykhan had executed a rent note in favour of the mortgagee. The mortgage was redeemed, according to the defendant, by her subsequent to the gift made in her favour. There was a dispute raised in the courts below with regard to the alleged endorsement of Behari Lal on the back of the deed of the mortgage in respect of the redemption thereof. This apart, the fact, however remains that the original deed of mortgage has been placed on record by the defendant and the probability strongly is, as found also by the lower appellate court, that she redeemed a mortgage subsequent to the gift made in her favour The defendant also placed on record original rent note which her father-in-law had executed in favour of the mortgagee. It was argued for the appellant then that the name of the defendant did not find place in the voters' list relating to this house for period of 1960-64 and that she is instead recorded with her father. It was also argued that she is not shown to have had her ration card in reference to the house in dispute. In this connection reference from the other side is made to the notice dated 2-1-1958 which Smt. Batulan gave to the defendant wherein it is stated that the defendant had stepped in possession over the part of the disputed house. The documents sought to be relied upon for the appellant have necessarily to be taken into consideration along with this admission on the part of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. It is also in evidence that Jamil Ahmad had instituted original Suit No. 131 of 1964 against Smt. Kanizan for perpetual injunction in respect of this house. The finding recorded in that case was that Jamil Ahmad was not a tenant of Smt. Batulan as alleged by him. This also may be taken to serve as a piece of evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. The lower appellate court has also placed reliance on the testimony of two witnesses examined for the defendant, besides herself, in proof of the gift set up by her. There may not be said to be inherent incredibility attached to a case of oral gift under the Mohammedan Law. The lower appellate court has also placed reliance on the testimony of two witnesses examined for the defendant, besides herself, in proof of the gift set up by her. There may not be said to be inherent incredibility attached to a case of oral gift under the Mohammedan Law. The inability on the part of the defendant to state with precision, the date or the day when the gift was made may not be given importance, as rightly observed by the lower appellate court. 6. It was next argued by the appellants counsel that the gift set up by the defendant was conditional and hence it could not be given effect to. In this connection it is pointed out that the defendant stated in her deposition that her father-in-law had told her that there is an usufructory mortgage of this house in favour of Behari Lal and she may redeem the same on payment of a sum of Rs. 300/. I am unable to take this as condition attached to the gift executed in favour of the defendant. This was at the best a piece of information given by the original owner to the transferee in respect of the pre-existing mortgage in order that she might redeem the mortgage and obtain possession in pursuance thereof. There was no stipulation making the title of the defendant over the disputed house conditional upon the redemption of the mortgage being made by her. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant referred also to the principle relating to the appreciation of the oral evident by the appellate court where the trial court has made assessment of the same. There is no dispute with regard to the principle to be observed in such a case. In the instance case however it will be noted, that the assessment made by the lower appellate court in departure from that of the trial court is based upon sound reasoning and it is supported also by a proper appreciation of the documents place on record on both sides. The trial court seems, indeed, to have proceeded on assumption here is no document of any kind supporting the defendants contention and that the documents support the plaintiff in his plea that no oral gift could have been made. This assumption was not correct and has been shown to be erroneous by the lower appellate court as also discussed above. 8. This assumption was not correct and has been shown to be erroneous by the lower appellate court as also discussed above. 8. For the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.